🏅 Top traders

@Gen Re: track user trades, limit orders

@mods can this resolve YES?

@Ynad23 I think this pretty unambiguously can resolve YES. Forbes & Bloomberg both currently show Elon at ~$1.1T, and have both announced Elon Musk as the world's first trillionaire

Elon Musk Is The World’s First Trillionaire
Elon Musk Hits $1 Trillion Net Worth as SpaceX IPO Breaks Records - Bloomberg

Here is our aggregation of news sources that say he is a trillionaire.

———

Elon Musk becomes world's first trillionaire as SpaceX shares soar on stock market debut

https://ground.news/article/spacex-shares-open-at-150-11-above-the-ipo-price-of-135?utm_source=mobile-app&utm_medium=newsroom-share

Just want to note that it turns out this was the more reliable and meaningful market. It’s priced appropriately. Any market that already resolved did so prematurely IMO.

@MachiNi TBF it seems to have been just a random technical accident, which is very unexpected of a media org as large as Forbes. I’m also not sure why this market is suddenly so much higher than it was before considering Forbes was pretty likely to show 1T before Bloomberg anyway, and nothing on the ground has changed, unless there’s a prevalent belief that this market might just result YES soon based just on the Forbes accident.

@Dssc I am not sure I would describe it as a "random" technical accident but technical accident seems fair enough..
Google Search
for SPCX stock showed a price of $135 yesterday and today. It could be based off that appearing when strictly that is being shown too soon. Tesla seems up today so it seems likely both might accurately show Musks wealth as $1 trillion+ tonight/for end of today even if it trades lower tomorrow.

The accidentally too early display by Forbes alone shouldn't cause it to resolve yes, but both displaying it for end of today would no longer be a mistake if the expected announcement is made and this should cause a yes resolution shouldn't it?

Bloomberg may apply a discount to private company ownership which Forbes doesn't so the difference between the two sources might disappear or be substantially reduced very soon but I am not sure how confident I should be in this explanation or whether a small difference might remain.

@ChristopherRandles It just seems so ridiculous to me to use an asking price as the true valuation in any net worth calculation, so it seems unlikely for Forbes/Bloomberg to intentionally do so. Also suppoedly Forbes uses a 10% liquidity discount for private companies from their 2025 methodology, which is higher than Bloomberg's 5% (But who knows if Forbes is still using their 2025 methodology), but Forbes lists a higher current valuation than Bloomberg for SpaceX. It also seems that Bloomberg uses a 44% stake for SpaceX, while Forbes only uses a 41% stake for SpaceX, although they should both use the SEC prospectus share count which is ~42% after the IPO (Which I'm not sure why they aren't already using, maybe both are and just haven't updated their editorial descriptions). I think most likely Bloomberg was always less likely than Forbes to hit 1T, but admittedly their methodologies are a little unclear so I'm not completely sure either.

@Ynad23 Forbes Real Time Billionaires List - The World's Richest People

Forbes Real Time Billionaires List - The World's Richest People

Browse today’s rankings of the wealthiest people and families globally. Discover the net worth, age, and other information about the richest people in the world.

@ZandaZhu Prior clarifications imply that bloomberg also has to show Elon Musk as a trillionaire

Anybody want a counterparty? I would like to make a clean exit.

"If it's good enough to screenshot, it's good enough to sell."

A Danish pension fund has blacklisted SpaceX, calling it grossly overvalued with catastrophic governance

AkademikerPension will not buy SpaceX shares at any price near the $1.8 trillion IPO target, saying the company cannot reasonably be worth more than $1 trillion and that Musk’s voting control makes it effectively uninvestable

https://thenextweb.com/news/danish-pension-spacex-blacklist-governance-overvalued

Danish pension fund blacklists SpaceX IPO over governance

AkademikerPension calls SpaceX "grossly overvalued" at $1.8T and cites "catastrophic governance." Fund joins US pension giants in flagging Musk's 85% voting control.

Hey everybody, don't forget that this market can be somewhat arbitraged here, to an extent.

@Ynad23 Oh! You're here! Do you agree with @Gen's interpretation?

@Quroe I’m only partially in agreement with this approach. Media coverage is not always an accurate reflection of reality, and news articles often rely on the same underlying source rather than providing independent verification. As a result, multiple articles calling Musk a trillionaire do not necessarily prove that he has actually crossed the $1 trillion threshold.

I also think it is inconsistent to resolve YES when only one of the two primary trackers is above $1 trillion while the other is still below it. If the goal is an objective and verifiable standard, the strongest criterion would be for both Bloomberg and Forbes to show Musk’s net worth above $1 trillion.

@Ynad23

If there is no substantive opposition this becomes the resolution criteria on June 10th

-Genzy's comment

I believe your clarification has higher priority. Are we locking this in? "AND" logic all the way?

@Quroe @Ynad23
Suppose there was disagreement between the sources from IPO to 30 June, but then one jumped to being in close agreement with the other.

Would we sensibly conclude that the source that didn't jump was the better source?

I wouldn't suggest we wait more than a couple of weeks after June 30th to see if this happened. If it doesn't happen then your AND logic?

@Ynad23 Does this require both to show Elon Musk as a trillionaire simultaneously? IE since Forbes temporarily had Elon Musk as a trillionaire earlier today, does this mean that as long as Bloomberg then shows Elon Musk trillionaire the market will resolve YES, regardless of what Forbes shows in the future? Or do both Bloomberg and Forbes have to show Elon Musk as a trillionaire simultaneously?

@Dssc Omg, that would be the funniest timeline: Forbes accidentally shows him as a trillionaire, then Bloomberg does after Forbes fixes and another Manifold Musk market resolves yes. 😂

It seems reasonable to me that this market should resolve based on:

- At least one of the linked Bloomberg or Forbes trackers showing Musk >$1Trillion
AND
- At least 3 other sources, e.g. news articles, which I'm sure there will be many, asserting he is a Trillionaire -- Some already exist, but imo it will be plainly obvious when the media 'agrees' that it happened

OR
- Both linked trackers show Musk >$1Trillion

Does anyone disagree with this? If there is no substantive opposition this becomes the resolution criteria on June 10th

@Gen I'm unsure what you a calling "3 other sources". In a strict journalistic sense a source is an origination of information, meaning if Bloomberg publishes it and 50 articles are written about it then there is ONE source, those 50 articles are just quoting Bloomberg.

I suspect from your wording you use a more colloquial definition of source, which would completely subvert the need for 2 sources since Bloomberg declaring it would obviously be reported by others.

@hidetzugu sorry, I meant it in the most fluffiest meaningless sense. Just 3 other places vaguely validating that >1T happened, sources of validation, not actual sources— my bad!

@hidetzugu basically if one shows >1T it should be fine, imo, but in exceptional circumstances where nobody writes about it, such as a technical error showing >1T, we wouldn’t resolve on that. I don’t know how else to capture the spirit of this and dispel the concerns.

I don’t expect this market to have a controversial outcome

@Gen Me neither, we're just taking into consideration @Quroe 's concerns, and the description does give him cause to expect both.

I'd perhaps suggest requiring the 2nd source to be non-fluffy if there's a disagreement. I suspect Elon himself would tweet it from the rooftops and that's a source in of itself.

@Gen Looks good to me!